Given the philosophical anti-God arguments established by the theory of Evolution, and its controversy, it would be unwise for a Christian not to take the time to look into this theory in great detail. The philosophies that embrace science today are vastly different than they once were. Science has been hijacked by one philosophy in particular by individuals that are known as 'naturalists'. In the first of this series, I will be simplifying this separation of science and philosophy.

Naturalists are individuals who look at the scientific method as the primary, if not the only, test of reality. As one may already know, the scientific method is "based on gathering observable empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observations and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypothesis." (wikipedia.org, emphasis mine)

When one argues that there is no God, and that Evolution is the primary source of the origin of man, and that mankind is a product of mathematical chance they fall under the category of a naturalistic atheist. One may wonder why this explanation is necessary, it is to establish a backdrop for the analysis of this epistemology (which is defined as a theory of knowledge).

On it's own, this theory of knowledge cannot survive as a philosophy. Naturalism may have within its own means the capacity to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge, but beyond its own tests it must make assumptions, and those assumptions must be made upon the natural origins. In other words, if something is unexplainable by the scientific method, the naturalist must assume that which is unexplainable has a natural explanation to it that the scientific method simply cannot yet test.

To word it in a much more controversial way, the naturalist must have faith that there is a natural explanation to the unexplainable and have faith that the scientific method will one day offer those explanations. This is what is described as metaphysical naturalism or "[the] view [that] nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist." (wikipedia.org)

For example, the origins of the "Big Bang" of the universe cannot yet be explained, however, the individual who embraces this philosophy which is the combination of existential naturalism with metaphysical naturalism argues that there must be a natural explanation. This explanation, however, is rooted in faith, because the scientific method does not have the capacity to explain how it is theoretically possible to happen by natural means.

We have, in a round-a-bout way now come to a point where a conclusion can be made. Creationists are often accused of making a "god of the gaps" argument which is best defined, once again, at wikipedia:

"The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature."

Naturalists argue that theists conveniently place God in that which cannot yet be explained by the scientific method, and in doing so are simply taking it on faith that God is the explanation, and therefore their argument is invalid. Now we finally arrive at a contradiction in the argument of the naturalist. It is a logical contradiction to claim that the assumption made by those who place God within the gaps of scientific explanations is false because it is made on faith, when those very gaps are replace by faith in the scientific method by those claiming the falsity.

In other words, the ones who argue God is an invalid placement within the gaps are placing their own form of God within the gaps themselves. This God is the faith in science being able to offer a natural explanation to the gaps. So now there is clarity in the assumptions of the naturalist over the creationist. The creationist assumes God and the atheistic naturalist assumes not-God. Their conclusions then correlate with those assumptions, but both make that assumption on faith, because the gap is not yet testable or explainable by the scientific method.

There is a fine line between science and philosophy, these naturalistic atheists are hijacking the scientific method to justify their pre-disposed philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. The pre-disposition is they want to believe there is a natural explanation to everything so there their is no supernatural. If there is no supernatural, then there is no moral lawgiver. If there is no moral lawgiver then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law they cannot be subject to it.

There are thousands of world renouned scientists who embrace the ideas of creation. Some of the greatest minds in history could not deny the existence of an ultimate intelligence that created nature because of its beauty and sophistication including Albert Einstein, Arthur Compton, Johann Kepler, Lord Kelvin, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. Although they all disagreed on who this God was, they believe this God created the natural order of the universe in all its beauty and magnificence.

Although the criticisms of this post will come ten fold, some things ought be said about the response of the Digg community to the most recent post entitled "End of the school term? Lets have an orgy!" I encourage all individuals to see the dis-heartening responses for themselves.

Any individual who has been exposed to the Internet for a fairly large amount of time would know, there are at times when many individuals respond to articles in seemingly sarcastic anonymous humor. There is no doubt that this anonymity allows an individual to state things they normally would not state in a face-to-face interaction.

For this reason, the Internet is a beautiful thing in that it gives the user more freedom to express their true thoughts or take on a persona to express thoughts they normally would not express. With the disclaimer out of the way, the responses to this particular article were not only dis-heartening, but devastatingly concerning.

One may find it dis-heartening, that when articles discussed about government controversies and torture victims of the war are posted on Digg the sympathy runs rampant. However, when a group of young adults, assumed to be under the age of 18, participate in a mass orgy after their graduation, there is a celebration within the Digg community.Many requesting pictures and videos of the minors in their orgy and expressing disappointment that they themselves could not participate in the event.

Is there a heart for sexuality anymore? Does no one understand the horrific possibilities of consequences that can befall these young men and women as a result of this behavior? Ought there not be an outcry of discouragement for such dangerous behaviors? Would they say the same thing if it were their daughters and sons? Their sisters and brothers?

The article illustrates the rampant drug use that coincided with this event. This ought to be a day of shame for the Digg community, as they Dugg down those individuals who felt sympathy for the families and community of this correlation of poor behavior. It is not a laughable situation, sexuality is a powerful entity and can have a permanent impact on each individuals life.

A wise man once said, "If there is one thing we've learned from history it's that we haven't learned from history." A part of me wants to believe this man was a historian himself, otherwise one would need to question whether or not he is repeating a statement that was already in history or making that statement without knowledge of history himself thus making an invalid statement. It was news to me, but that doesn't make it new news nor does my repeating it make it any form of new historical progress, but I bore you with my mindless digressions...

As my generation turns into an election year we've become the forefront in lack of education of our historical ancestry. Dare the statistics even be quoted at this point? Having escaped the clutches of public education only years earlier, I now understand why my own knowledge of history was lacking. One could discuss the cliche 'Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.' Although cliched it proves a valid point. The entirety of my education of history in my public high school consisted of one class, ran by a middle aged gentleman who pleasantly reminded us George Bush stole the elections, 9/11 was his conspiracy and then moved on to filling three days of classes with the film JFK. Do not question him by the way, you will be ridiculed...

Needless to say the only historical facts learned in that class were that history teachers have historically taught what they want their students to perceive as history. Thus, bringing us in a round-a-bout way to the overall point. My generation, without any knowledge of history, will inevitably repeat it. The news, who knows its audience, will find no difficulty finding stories to astound their viewers with, because their viewers have no historical reference to what is being portrayed. Lack of knowledge of history is the first step towards the replacement of history with a different, more convenient one.

Wisdom is "...knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action" (dictionary.com). If we fail to be knowledgeable of what is true, then how can one prepare to make a just judgment? They cannot, if ones perceptions are skewed, and their knowledge is vastly lacking, their judgments will be based upon that unknowledgable system. We have become unwise, and not because we have simply made the decision to be unwise, but because the pleasures, the cultures and the society we live in makes it much more convenient and encourages us to be as such.

Does this not make sense as to how such a historically failed system of socialism still maintains such a strong presence in modern day society? Or the universal adoption of a theory of science that is now critically discredited by some of the worlds top scholars still maintains such a foothold? It is not because the philosophy and science are just simply invalid, it is because the truths of the dramatic flaws of that philosophy and science have conveniently never been taught. So we embrace them with open arms and little knowledge, not realizing if we had only obtained the knowledge necessary, we would be pushing the ideas out our door much quicker than we would have let them in.

The Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias has tackled the question "How can a God exist when there is so much evil in the world?" brilliantly in his work entitled "Can Man Live Without God" as well as in his countless visits to hundreds of campuses worldwide where he was asked some of the toughest questions by Atheists and skeptics. This is an excellent question and deserves attention.

The following is an excerpt from Ravi's book "Can Man Live Without God" in the Question and Answer section where he was asked by a student at Harvard University, "There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God."

"...When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What then is your question?..."

When one places the idea of evil within the frame of their question they are assuming what is known as a dualist system of morality. Dualism in theology is defined as "the doctrine that there are two independent... eternal principles, one good and the other evil" (dictionary.com) To frame the question in this way is to assume that good and evil exist, and therefore God does not exist because there is evil.

As Ravi so eloquently puts it, when there is Good and Evil there must be a way to differentiate between the two, this is a moral law that governs the individuals ability to discern between the two and to assume this moral law is to assume that there is a moral law-giver that governs it.

This places the questioner in a predicament, as without a dualist system of good and evil the question itself becomes incoherent. You see, my generation has it in their minds that Good and Evil are not absolute, they are relative. What one culture may perceive as good another may perceive as evil. If there is no absolute Good and Evil how can the questioner state "There is too much evil.." How does God allow evil if there is no such thing as evil? Furthermore, by the relativist standard just because we may perceive something as evil does not mean another culture will. Therefore, God does not allow evil, and as Ravi often states, "the question self-destructs."

You will find that this argument is repeated many times even so by myself. It is illustrative of the contradicting ideas my generation has embraced.Our questions are often not even rooted in a coherent system of questioning and we are using these incoherent questions alone to disbelieve the existence of God. For a question as important as the possibility of eternal bliss or eternal damnation, one would think we should at least frame our argument against God coherently.

If you are not much of a reader, you can listen to Ravi's online radio excerpt where he discusses these ideas further in his series entitled: Why I Am Not an Atheist. Each MP3 is about 12 minutes long.

Etched into the heart of every individual is the key to God's existence. Man, as noble and intelligent of a creature he is, often masks that which is simple with his intellectual layers. The explanations offered by sciences of behavior and of theological and philosophical understandings aim to fulfill one basic idea, the answer to the basic questions that lie within the heart of man.

These fundamental questions are often asked with the wonderous word of "Why?", but it is unreasonable to ask such a question without the expectations that there lies within it an answer. To deny that the human heart craves something beyond understanding, beyond the real is to deny that which makes us human. It is this inquiry that is often overlooked as being normal, yet, it is not normal. No other creature of the world tortures itself with such unanswerable questions of meaning and purpose.

It is within this that we find a profound yet beautiful etching of God onto our hearts. This crave for intelligence, for justice, for a Utopia so far beyond our own world is what makes man reflective of God's will. We desire to know his intelligence, we seek his justice and desire his Utopia. The men who deny God seek this eternal knowledge for their own benefits, but they seek it none-the-less. They want his intelligence to bring about their own glories, his justice to take it for themselves and manipulate it to their will and the image of his Utopia so they can try to create one of their own.

Oh what a vastly simple trait that all men carry, yet none very often acknowledge it and many blatantly refuse too. The soul has been discussed since Plato and Socrates in 430 BC. This divine desire to understand a world within our own hearts, apart from the material realities that stand before us. This is, in the vastness of all intellectual and apologetic defenses, one of the most powerful and divine illustrations of God's existence. It is the conscience that is unexplainable by the material world. The divine truth etched into our hearts screams in pain when it bears witness to the atrocities of this world. It is this divine etching that brought C.S. Lewis from an Atheist to a believer of God.

None can deny the power of this etching, but they can choose to ignore it. They can bury the beautiful etching of God's truths from their hearts and embrace the material world in it's form. All who deny it's existence must fight off and mask this pain with their intellect. Mankind, since the beginning of time, has done just that, to deny God is to deny the truths that lie within ones own heart. The results are an accumulation of devastating incoherence and confusion, a collage of rights and wrongs materialized from the flawed intellect of man. If only man would soften their hearts, acknowledge their desire for the eternity of God, and seek the one who etched this beauty into each and every soul.

Why can they not see you, oh Lord? How incredible it is one can illustrate the beauty of God's existence in such a simple yet profound question.

"God has set eternity in their hearts, yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end" - Ecclesiastes 3:11

The Christian who follows God only in fear of Hell often finds themselves in bitterness and anger. These things are often a result of following guidelines of a self-created impersonal creator. Yet, the Christ of the Bible is a personal God that is uniquely Christian, and our following ought to be a fearful reverence of Gods wisdom, not a fear of damnation. This would be a shallow faith indeed. For through Christ we are free'd from that damnation (John 3:16), and through him are free'd with the holy spirit to have communion with our father.

The Christ relationship is the same idea that a son follows his fathers advice to avoid a certain individual or keep away from a certain street. Although the son may not fully understand why his father would ask him to do such things, he has faith that his father is much more knowledgeable and wise than himself.

But no Christian always listens to their father just as no child always listens to their own father. Many times we find ourselves in extreme curiosity or in what we perceive as overwhelming circumstances violating that which our father warned us about. Perhaps the child was just gathering with their friends their father approved of and so-and-so showed up, or perhaps, in their dangerous curiosity, went to explore that street to find out what the big deal was.

When we violate the words of our father, his warnings may become apparent very quickly, and his wisdom is once again reassured. Other times, we find ourselves continuing to violate his rules until what he inevitably warned us about comes to pass. "Perhaps he was wrong about this," we often tell ourselves "what a silly father, he was just paranoid." Later on, the subtlety of sin creeps into a part of our lives we'd have never expected.

After the damage has been done, and if the Christian comes to the realization of his error, there is an inclination to admit it to their own father. Just as a son sometimes is driven instead of hiding his violations to admit them to their own father. The father is often disappointed that the violation took place, but that soon is immediately replaced with respect, love and appreciation for their son confessing to them their mistakes. To do so is admitting to their own father that his own son, of whom he loves, is beginning to understand his wisdom. Admittance of ones own sins is a sign of growth to the father. This is why it is beautifully built into God's revelation that the Christian repent and turn from their sins. It is in that personal contact that we often see the deceptiveness of the wisdom of our own hearts next to the beautiful wisdom of a perfect Lord.

God's desire is not to punish nor is it to have followers who only follow him out of fear. God wants us to understand that he knows what is best for us in our lives, and that his rules and warnings are ones out of a fathers love for his child not a impersonal creators guideline for the created so they can "get" heaven. In this, Christ gave us that connection with our father through the holy spirit. He gave us communion with God to seek his council. The Christian God is not one who is controlling or belittling, he is but a father who advises his children and lets them choose to follow it, never leaving them, and always being with them to try and bring them back to truth when they suffer in the pains of denying it.

If one has not yet seen that the Lord is our father, and not an impersonal detached force determining ones salvation. I encourage them to pray for the holy spirit to work in them by accepting and reaffirming Jesus Christ as their savior. It is through Christ and the Spirit that communion with God and salvation are possible.

Let me close with this final thought that God has brought to me:

I want to know you, my child, just but give me a chance and I will bring to you a place beyond your universe and your imagination, for I have created this universe in days and for all eternity have been beyond all imagination.

and this scripture:

Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23:24)

There are days where God seems so distant. On those days it seems everything one is trying to spiritually accomplish has been set back a league or two. The Christian heart is an interestingly cyclical thing. On some days the spirit seems so near that everything one sees and does has with it a sense of God's presence. On other days everything one sees and does has with it the obvious stains of the sinful heart.

On those days distant from God, the Christian finds themselves in a shameful position of wondering where they went wrong with God. Oddly, one is proned to question their own spiritual condition when their own feelings of God are distant. Feelings in general are a dangerous allurement to the Christian. If the Christian expects to feel closeness with God at all times then it becomes dangerous on those days when they do not feel so close.

God's promise is that he is always near, whether one feels him or not. Truth, in and of itself is an entity apart from feelings. Ironically, it is on those days that the Christian needs God the most. The flesh on days where God seems distant is quick to fill that spiritual hole with that of the world. More than often, on days of distance the heart turns to the biggest vice that particular Christian possesses. For the one with the vice of lust, they turn to pornography and impure thoughts. For the one with the vice of greed, to their work and worry of debts and finances. For the one with the vice of envy, to their ever bitter noticing attention of those who possess something of their desires.

Satan is quick to jump on the Christian whose feelings are distant from God. He knows the power of feelings over the word of God in times of or lives, he knows the weakness of the flesh is his biggest weapon. It is a window of opportunity for him to steer the Christian towards the embracing the scalpel of sin that can spiritually slash the Christians connection with the spirit. Once this is accomplished, he never forgets to finish the job by belittling the Christian who gave into his allurements and attempting to push the Christian into believing God will not be merciful on him for his betrayal.

Jesus Christ is merciful, and he doesn't forget those days where we feel distant from him and still bend to his will nor does he fail to extend forgiveness to those who return to him in shame and repentance of our deeds. The distancing of God often times is a reminder to the individual that they still need God, and without him, the feeling of distance from God would be permanent. We should find comfort in knowing that although some days the distance can seem unbearable, the promise of the reunion with God is true - and how long that distance sometimes is can truly show us how much sweeter that reunion will be.

"Am I only a God nearby," declares the LORD, "and not a God far away?"

Yesterday's call to atheists was not a complex one, nor did it carry any underlying hatred towards atheists. It simply poised an important question to the atheist, "Can those who disbelieve in God respect those who do not?" or more importantly, "Ought those who do not believe in God respect those who do?" This is not a scientific question, it is a moral one.

To the naturalist, however, it is a silly question. In retrospect, perhaps I should have foreseen the kind of feedback received from yesterday's article. You see, if one embraces the scientific method alone in their judgment of reality - anything regarding faith, moral laws or any other ideas of moral realism are equivalent to, to borrow a phrase, a "flying spaghetti monster". The more I am witness too the more I understand that naturalists and the religious will have difficulties co-existing.

Naturalists will inevitably demand that all claims made by those who believe in moral realism be brought into their realm of testing. It is an interesting notion, almost equating to attempting to prove color exists in a world without color. The very rules of theorizing have changed when this shift occurs. They attempt bring the believer into their domain of moral skepticism and then destroy the believer's concepts. Let us tie together some concepts we went over these past two weeks with the experience we have witnessed over the past two days.

"I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. "

- C.S. Lewis, 'mere' Christianity, 1943

Lewis points to an interesting concept here. He was at one time an atheist, until he began to understand the pressing of 'oughts' and 'ought nots' on an individual when they are making decisions and after deep analyzation derived that these ideas must be coming from a governing Natural Law. Yesterday's request attests to this concept, such that if the atheist who is a moral skeptic, (suggesting that no individual has an innate pressure to defend what is right instead of wrong) then what is it that drives them to jump to their defense? This Natural Law does indeed exist in every individual, and it is not theorizable or testable by the scientific method.

"My generation has embraced a world of intellectual elitism. The "uneducated" are no longer in a position to determine that which is right and wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," a principle espoused by our founding fathers and written in the United States Declaration of Independence can no longer exist, intellectual evidence now reigns supreme. "

- Craig Chamberlin, Modern Man has "Educated Himself to Imbecility", 2008

This still rings true. Moral skeptics are faced with an inevitable dilemma that contradicts even the principles espoused by our founding fathers. Even the founding fathers established that morality is an innate concept, apparent to every man, woman and child. Such ideas of a moral code separate from science completely destroys that naturalistic viewpoint. Each individual cannot determine what is right and wrong for society, right and wrong must be scientifically and empirically theorized and tested in its establishment. The duty of the establishing of what is best for society, therefore, is to be determined by the intellectually elite. This is why the most common argument one will see against the religious is "I don't mind if a man wants to believe in religion, just keep it out of the state and laws."

This, my friends, is indeed religious intolerance. It posits the ideas of moral skepticism (that no one has any knowledge of morality and science is the only method to establish right and wrong) is superior to every individual who believes the contrary. Each man cannot determine what is right and wrong for himself, ergo, society cannot determine what is right and wrong for itself. You see, if all moral right and wrong must be filtered through the scientific method - truths are no longer "self-evident". Without each individual being able to derive moral truths for themselves, this is not a republic any longer. It becomes a society where those with the greatest knowledge of scientifically filtered empirical evidence establish the truths for the rest of the world to follow.

"Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete. It is superseded by science, deleted by philosophy and dismissed as emotive by psychology. It is drowned in compassion, evaporates into aesthetics and retreats before relativism.... we have actually begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim, and not the perpetrator of the crime."

- Robert Fitch, Christianity and Crisis: A Journal of Opinion, 1959

The replacement of moral realism with moral skepticism began long before today. These ideas of ethics and good behaviors have become a product of physiological conditions. There are no "truths" anymore in the realm of the moral skeptic, it is all up in the air at each judgment. Therefore, science, philosophy and psychology are all used to establish scientifically filtered ethics that can emotionally justify that which those of us innately see sets a dangerous precedent.

"And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."

- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909

Yesterday, atheists on Digg were requested denounce their fellow atheists who espouse religious intolerance. This request carried with it a burden the atheist would have to face. To denounce their fellow atheists they would be required to adhere to a moral doctrine of what individuals ought and ought not to do. To do so is to undermine the very doctrine by which the majority of them embrace, one of moral skepticism. As expected, very few actual discouragement of intolerances were espoused. One should deeply applaud the few individuals who tried to appeal to the intellect of their fellow constituents, their efforts should not go unnoticed.

I had many comments demanding that this request be made to theists as well as atheists. Of course tolerance should be expected from both sides (this was even stated that in the original article), but why is it that when requested to denounce intolerance from atheists that they demand intolerance be denounced from theists? Is not the denunciation of intolerance something that should be espoused irregardless of the tolerances of the opposing party? In other words, if atheists on their own stand as tolerant individuals, should they not denounce intolerance whether theists denounce it or not? It is equivalent to saying, "my system is only tolerant when the opposing viewpoint is tolerant." This, in an of itself, is an intolerant system. Tolerance is defined as:

Those atheists of whom only espouse tolerance when they themselves are given tolerance are not, in fact, tolerant by its very definition. Tolerance is the fair, objective and permissive attitude toward the opposing viewpoint despite how tolerant or intolerant they may be. It is best illustrated in the realm of free speech. If a group of KKK individuals are protesting on the streets our society grants them tolerance, despite the group being intolerant. Thus, this law is a tolerant one, it does not base its tolerance on whether the opposing group is tolerant or not.

The subjects of atheism and moral relativism have been touched on rather adequately these past two weeks and there is still much else to discuss. The hope is that many individuals found these past few weeks insightful - and although many may now have the emotional scars of the battle of ideas, they should come out with a better understanding of both themselves and those of whom they disagree.

Many ideas were discussed in yesterday's post that put well respectable and well minded atheists in a position of discomfort. Today, I wanted to expand on some ideas of remembering not all atheists are disrespectful and extend an invitation to well minded atheists to denounce the religious intolerance portrayed on the study discussed to give a better perspective.

Yesterday's post dealt with the religious intolerance espoused by a large number of atheists in the Digg community in response to an article discussing correlations between religion and happiness. There was a very valid concern that was raised in the resulting discussions that ought to be acknowledged. A few individuals very respectably pointed out that not all atheists fall under the umbrella of those who espoused the religious intolerance.

Those of us who are dealing with criticisms and touching on the idea of religious intolerance need to avoid broad generalizations. There are, indeed, many believers and non-believers who have valid and respectable positions and contradictions that they do not fully understand. Also, they have complete respect for those who are in disagreeance with them. It is important that all remember that Jesus commanded us to "love our neighbors."

There are ways to lovingly disagree with an individual. I hope that my responses did not convey the idea that I hold for myself a hatred or contempt for those who argued the points discussed. I was merely attempting to point out the apparent intolerances that lie within the arguments. The ultimate goal is not to put the other individual down, but to get them thinking about the context, coherency and implications of their argument.

One final important issue exists, however. There was a larger consensus on Digg for the approval of religious intolerance rather than the disapproval - reflective in the Diggs themselves. There were not many, but there were some, outcries from the atheistic community demanding respect for those with religious beliefs. I applaud their efforts.

I call to those who are in full disagreeance with the comments that were made to participate fully in denouncing their fellow atheists who espoused these intolerances, show us that there is a large number of atheists who vehemently disagree with their intolerances. I would expect no less from the theist community as well if a theist espouses intolerance towards the opposing viewpoint. The fact that so few denounced the intolerances established the consensus of that particular community, despite the few outcries against them. Feel free to post them in Digg comments section.

When they see it occuring, it is the responsibility of the well-minded individual to establish to their constituents that intolerances are unacceptable. If they do not, then it ought to be expected that the individuals being hurt by that particular group will be openly discussing their arguments. When illustrating my generation, those who are respectable to others viewpoints have simply become too few and far between.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Yesterday an individual posted an article on Digg that pointed to a study suggesting the religious are better at coping with the setbacks of life than atheists. The majority of atheistic responses were profoundly intolerant and every individual should take a closer look into what these atheists posit over the religious viewpoint.

My generation has arrived, if not only in small doses, at the embracing of intellectual elitism. Just days earlier I had discussed the idea that my generation has embraced the idea that only those with superior intellect are capable of making the proper moral judgments for society. The supposedly "unintelligent" are no longer capable of making moral judgments for society, only for themselves. This is what is commonly argued by the atheist, "I don't mind if a man wants to be religious, just don't push it on me." Suggesting that the laws and morals of a society are only to be determined by the intellectually superior and not by the society that may embrace belief in God.

The following statements were made in response to the study posted on Digg. I encourage everyone who has an interest to view the post themselves and form their own opinion - and see the majority of comments were completely disrespective of those who embrace religious beliefs. As an important note, these comments come from the same individuals who argue each culture has the freedom to establish their own ideas of right and wrong, have the freedom to worship as they please and espouses that everyone should have tolerance for those with opposing viewpoints including other cultures and beliefs.

"Ignorance IS Bliss" (+519 Diggs)

This comment posits the intellect of the religious over the irreligious and was posted countless times. How ironic that even the most prestigious atheistic scientists will argue that God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. That the natural scientific method by which science is conducted can in no way prove a supernatural - it can only point to it or away from it, which at that point becomes a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. It is not ignorant to believe in God, it is just not embracing the scientific method alone. Belief in God is a combination of both science and philosophy.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan (+230 Diggs)

This is purely a philosophical argument. The universe 'as it really is' is based upon the presupposition that science is infallable and has the answer to all questions of the universe. The arguer suggests they have ultimate knowledge of the universe to make the argument that they can perceive the universe 'as it really is'. The irony is that this statement is just as "ignorant" as believing in God by their standards, it can be no more proven or disproven of being true by science as a philosophy than the existence of God.

"when I was a kid, the thought of Santa Clause made me happy, but that didn't make him real..." (+117 Diggs)

Although his argument is correct he undermined the entire point of the article, that in reality individuals with religious beliefs are better at handling emotional setbacks than the irreligious. Instead, he used this study as an opportunity to compare God to Santa Clause which is known as a straw-man argument where you place the opposing viewpoint in a ridiculous position and then knock down that position. The article wasn't attempting to prove God, it was attempting to study statistical correlations.

The irony is that an often coined argument by the athiest against the theist is "Why ought I give up my happiness in this life for eternal bliss in the afterlife." This study is illustrative that often times the religious are happier than the atheists in both this and the afterlife, debunking their original argument. Therefore, they play this contradiction off as "ignorance is bliss", refusing to acknowledge that the religious person can have more happiness than them in this life as well as their eternal bliss in the afterlife.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- Bernard Shaw (+404 Diggs)

This is a disproving of correlation argument, not a disproving of God argument. It is just pointing out the fact that happiness does not equate to truth. This is ultimately a true argument, but the argument itself posits a believer equivalent to a drunk man and an atheist equivalent to a sober man. In effect, it places the atheist at a superior position on a heirarchy than the believer. Believers, therefore, are below atheists in intellectual capacity and judgment. Once again, intellectual elitism at work.

There are many others but I believe the point has been established. It is such that the atheist posits themselves in an intellectually superior position than the theist, and while in many instances embracing a moral doctrine of relativism (which suggests everyone is free to establish their own beliefs and morals) they are quick to counter by saying if those beliefs are invalid by their tests - they cannot be used in society and they are "ignorant".

Why is intellectual elitism dangerous? I have discussed it in a previous post, it is the same framework of thinking that Hitler and his kind used in their establishment of the Utopian society. It suggested that the best interests of society were best left in the hands of the elite few than society itself. I hope that the atheist pays close attention to the contradictions that lie within the balance of freedoms and determination of societies best interests by science alone.

Today we are going to take a step back and into an idea illustrated wonderfully by one of the most well known writers of our time. C.S. Lewis takes a long hard look into what he calls the "Law of Human Nature" that is pressing on all of us whether we like it or not. He shows that our behavior is illustrative of its existence.

"...I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money - the one you have almost forgotten - came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done - well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister(or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it - and who the dickens am I, anyway?

I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe indecent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves...

...human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly... they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it..."

- C.S. Lewis, 'mere' Christianity , 1943

It is insightful to look upon ones own inner conflicts to learn about themselves. Lewis was quite possibly one of the most astute observers of what goes on in the mind at the time of moral conflicts. As a former atheist, Lewis' deep analysis of himself and his drive to understand morality drove him to believe in a moral law. He goes much deeper into the foundation of this moral law and criticisms against his ideas in his book, if someone is initially inclined to argue with him it would be wise to read his argument in full.

My generation seems sedated to the ideas of morality. The translucent glaze that comes over their eyes when confronted with a morally taxing question, the fear of offending, the fear of being contradicted. It is easier to live within a shell than to exact the idea of morality, or to press beyond the relativism that sedates us into comfort than to sober ourselves with reality. There is a terror to those who have been sedated, to those who have been 'isolated from reality' by media and entertainment that has occured as Edward R. Murrow eloquently warned us it would in 1958.

If we were to become sober, to exact the ideas of morality once again, it is to tell the alcoholic that he is too liberal with drinking. It is to tell the heroine addict he is too liberal with the needle. It is to break ourselves from that which has crutched us our entire lives. This, I implore the reader to realize, is the tragedy of my generation and the tragedy that will result in an inevitable self-inflicted terror upon our society. You see, the alcoholic often does not realize he is addicted until he has near destroyed himself or those around him. The heroine addict often destroys himself even before he realizes his addiction. Which are we? Are we to bring those around us and ourselves to near destruction before we break from our sobering, sedated isolation from reality? Or are we to destroy ourselves before we exact that realization?

This week is going to drive through insights from Malcolm Muggeridge, who at his time was a well known British journalist born in 1903. Later in his life Muggeridge wrote this piece drawing one of the most important conclusions which is embraced heavily by my generation today. He warns us of the devastating condition of the modern man.

"...it has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself,he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”

"having educated himself into imbecility...". My generation has embraced a world of intellectual elitism. The "uneducated" are no longer in a position to determine that which is right and wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," a principle espoused by our founding fathers and written in the United States Declaration of Independence can no longer exist, intellectual evidence now reigns supreme.

If a man argues the principles of God in the world of academia they are cut with the two words that will bring my very generation to its knees. "Prove it." Man can no longer get his principles from God alone, it must be backed by science or psychology. Only those with a thorough understanding of these subjects can determine that which is best for society. In short, my generation has become lawyers of truth and the defendant is God.

The irony in all of this is that while demanding that the man who defends the principles of God must use psychology and science to defend itself, those who demand it cannot defend their own principles using science and psychology. When questioned of their own ethic, their only response can be that each person can possess their own perception of right and wrong, otherwise they would have to justify their moral doctrine by the very criteria they demand be made of those who argue God. They are, in effect, rendered impotent of creating a moral society by their own argumentation.

Let me implore, nay, warn the reader to understand the importance of this to its most intrinsic level. There was a time in history when a society eventually embraced completely not the laws of God, but the idea that the elite few with a complete understanding of science and academia could drive man towards a Utopian society. The most sobering realization to my generation ought to be that the holocaust was not driven by madmen, not encouraged by the unintelligent, not espoused by those without an understanding of philosophy but by men who were rational, some of the most highly educated and by those who possessed some of the greatest understanding of the philosophies of their time.

The difference was only that which drove their rationale, intellect and philosophy. These men were living without God, and if something does not change in western civilization, we may see a different picture all too late.

"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."

As this week is wrapped up we now turn to the year 1980 with a writer by the name of Steve Turner. In the following creed he brings together all of the concepts that have been discussed this week and illustrates the society that embraces relativism is fundamentally self-defeating. My generation has very much embraced this creed.

"This is the creed I have written on behalf of all us.

We believe in MarxfreudanddarwinWe believe everything is OKas long as you don't hurt anyone,to the best of your definition of hurt,and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.We believe in the therapy of sin.We believe that adultery is fun.We believe that sodomy is OK.We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting betterdespite evidence to the contrary.The evidence must be investigatedAnd you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something inhoroscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;Jesus was a good manjust like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.He was a good moral teacheralthough we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--at least the one that we read was.They all believe in love and goodness.They only differ on matters ofcreation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the NothingBecause when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,then it's compulsory heaven for allexcepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.What's selected is average.What's average is normal.What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.Americans should beat their guns into tractorsand the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.It's only his behavior that lets him down.This is the fault of society.Society is the fault of conditions.Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.Reality will adapt accordingly.The universe will readjust.History will alter.We believe that there is no absolute truthexcepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,disaster is his rainbow in the sky,and when you hear

What an amazing illustration of the mindset of my generation. Earlier this week, Chesterton illustrated the embracing of relative philosophy and incessant skepticism leads to the undermining of ones own values. Fitch depicted the existential consequences of a society embracing this philosophy leading to the manipulation of science, psychology and philosophy to undermine the minds of the skeptic and draw out emotions to justify the unjustifiable. Steve Turner finishes the existential illustration by drawing the system of thought coherent to the modern man, illustrating how it's self-defeating, and then showing the societal consequences of this creed.

If you have been following my posts this week we have been going through the past of well known philosophers warning western society of the direction it is heading. Today I take you to 1959, where Robert Fitch wrote an article entitled "The Obsolescence of Ethics." in it he depicts a more vivid image relating to the direction of modern day ethics.

“Ours is an age where ethics has become obsolete. It is superceded by science, deleted by philosophy and dismissed as emotive by psychology. It is drowned in compassion, evaporates into aesthetics and retreats before relativism. The usual moral distinctions between good and bad are simply drowned in a maudlin emotion in which we feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the murdered, for the adulterer than for the betrayed, and in which we have actually begun to believe that the real guilty party, the one who somehow caused it all, is the victim, and not the perpetrator of the crime.”

- Robert Fitch, Christianity and Crisis: A Journal of Opinion, 1959

As one journeys through the wisdom of these writers this week they may tend to find a pattern here. Chesterton tells us the dangers of relativism, and that the overall skeptic is constantly questioning their own answers. Robert Fitch gives us a more existential illustration of the after effects of relativism. The embracing of and manipulation of science, philosophy and psychology to undermine the perspective of the skeptic and draw sympathy to excuse that which is unexcusable. The slow deterioration of a moral framework.

Amazing that in 1959 this was espoused. This is ever evident in the courtroom today.

The following is a vivid picture painted by the famous writer, poet and philosopher G.K. Chesterton. In it, he paints a portrait of the modern skeptic of his time who refuses to believe in an objective morality. There is much truth to be said even today about his words as our societies continue to embrace a relative philosophy of right and wrong.

"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.'"

- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909

It is amazing that even a decade later these ideas ring true. As individuals continue to argue that all of right and wrong are relative to perception, one sees the walls of right and wrong crumbling in America as every culture steers and fights for their own personal perceptions of right and wrong. We have forgotten that truth is objective, not relative, and that we need to use the wisdom of God while loving our neighbors as we love ourselves to drive our decisions.

Edward R. Murrow was one of the journalists who contributed to the downfall of McCarthy. Later, the following speech was given to his constituents imploring them to fight against where television and radio were heading in 1958. Here are the highlights, his predictions are chilling.

"This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television....

Our history will be what we make it.And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER....

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate....

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility....

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."...

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future.If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly....

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling....

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late....

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful....

A comment was made to me in passing today by a man in his twenties. "I do not mind what the religious feel or who they decide to worship, just as long as they don't try to force it down my throat we will be okay." This comment was made after I had rebuked an intolerant statement made that all religious people "are narrow minded and do not respect the viewpoints of others."

It does not matter who the individual was that made the statement, it is often opined by many in my generation today. The religious are allowed to be religious, just not religious in the public forum. The argument, clearly, is that the religious have a bias and cannot leave that bias out of the discussion.

The reality hits hard to the individual when he is told that all individuals have a bias. It's just that many are much easier to influence than others. It is true that the religious hold certain convictions - thus convincing them of something relating to morality does become more difficult. When those of my generation make this statement they are demanding that the religious censor their acting on true feelings about issues.

The truth is no man can remove their beliefs of morality from an argument or from their political stances. The man who argues against the 'religious right' against the idea of abortion takes the stance of being for abortion. There is no amoral position on this point, one is either for it, or against it. Now one may state they are for it but argue against it, but it is actions that are the determining factor of beliefs. If that man follows through with the allowance of abortion then his convicting stance is that abortion is justified. I cannot say Jesus is lord but worship at the altar of Buddha. Even the modern day man constantly accuses the religious of not following their religion by stating they do not practice it. It is by their deeds that their convictions are espoused. Both the religious and the irreligious see this to be true.

The religious person is easier to spot, and ultimately that is what it comes down too. When he states he is religious, society immediately raises a red flag on that mans stances. "He will make his decisions based upon God!" or "He will have a pre-disposed position on murderers!" Who, then is the one making the pre-judgment? It is society. The man above made the judgment that religion has no place in the world on the public forum. The further censorship of the stances of the religious is only to be expected. As if because a man believes in God, his convictions of morality are less valid. Yet when tested directly, the godless man can rarely even defend his own moral convictions.

Society has deemed that religious morality is no longer allowed in the public realm. Yet morality arrived at without religion still stands. Ironically, it is through intolerance that tolerance is preached. Let me challenge the reader to consider these two points. First if the convictions of the religious are barred from the realm of the public, how is this tolerance? Secondly, if jurys and judges should be positioned based upon their non-existence of convictions, how then can they possibly judge a mans deeds? Does it not just leave their perceptions open to the most convincing arguer? You have and will continue to see this in America today.

"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalms 11:3)

The modern Christian develops for himself the solutions to his own inadequacies. A man who struggles with lust or addiction will follow a twelve step program and seek to avoid any temptations that may lie in front of him. A man who struggles with greed will force himself away from work to spend time with his children. "Ultimately," the modern man will tell himself "avoidance of the thing I struggle with and the changing of my behavior will make me a better man."

The modern man deludes himself. Within his own mind he creates an image of himself and his own sins that need worked on. A checklist of the primary struggles he endures. He tells God, "These are the issues that I fail you in, and these are the issues that I must work on." Once he is done telling God what he must work on, he then moves to change his behavior to fall within the laws of God. "God, if only you could help me not do or think such-and-such, then I could fall within your laws and be good in your eyes." When he does this the power of God in his life is immediately limited.

There are two principle ideas the modern Christian rejects. Firstly, the he rejects the true nature of the evil that lies within his heart. In concluding that he is pure in certain areas of his own life, he has contradicted the truth of his own heart. Moral contentment is dangerous to the Christian heart, it removes the diligence that comes with maintaining purity. Once a man has accepted they have become pure in one particular area of their being, then a vacancy is left for the devil to occupy. No man has met the standards of purity in any aspect of their lives, yet, salvation is gifted to them none-the-less. This is the gift Christ has given, but it should not be manipulated by the mind of the man so that he can delude himself into thinking there is no more work to be done.

Secondly, he has rejected the power of God to change his heart. The man creates for himself a prescriptive solution to the impurities of his own heart. He struggles with lustful temptation, so he fights it by avoiding that temptation. He prays for his behavior to change. However, the temptation is still in his heart. Whilst one will realize that avoidance is necessary, the man also avoided God's purpose in that temptation. Christ deals with the heart, not the forced change of behavior. If man is forcing himself to avoid temptation, then he has not yet fully embraced the saving grace of God into his heart.

Let us make this as clear as possible. Moral behavior does not beget a moral heart. You may want to read that again. The Christian should not fail to understand this completely. Christ wants man to bring him into each and every temptation not to change their behavior, but to change their hearts. Christ wants man to see what he is without God, and desire to bring him into it. Each temptation is a reminder of the evil within our own hearts, and that evil within our hearts can only be conquered by the master of the heart. Evil behavior is only an after-effect of that which a man allows into their heart. This is why it is essential for the modern day Christian to spend time in meditation with the lord, and keep his mind on what is holy. For all other hours of the day, the world is having its impact on the heart, but it is only in worship that we give ours to God.

Once God has been given our hearts completely, and his transforming power is allowed into our hearts at every opportunity of temptation, the true transformation of behavior will begin. The solutions we create in our minds, my friends, cannot change the heart, only Christ can.

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks." Luke 6:45